Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/K/A Fleming, Nolen & Jez L.L.P.) and George Fleming v. Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, Paul Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458

Fleming & Associates (F&A) and George Fleming sued the Kirklin parties and the Jackson parties arising from post-settlement solicitation of F&A’s former clients in diet-drug litigation.
The Jackson parties and the Kirklin parties each filed TCPA (Anti‑SLAPP) motions to dismiss; the Kirklin parties also moved for summary judgment and Rule 13 sanctions.
On February 24, 2015, the trial court: denied the Kirklin parties’ TCPA motion as to F&A, granted the Kirklin parties’ TCPA motion as to Fleming, and granted the Jackson parties’ TCPA motion as to both F&A and Fleming; the grant orders reserved attorneys’ fees and sanctions for later.
Appellants appealed the TCPA dismissal orders and, separately, appealed an April 6, 2015 interlocutory summary-judgment order in favor of the Kirklin parties; the summary-judgment order did not resolve the Jackson parties’ claims for attorneys’ fees.
The court considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction over (1) interlocutory orders granting TCPA motions to dismiss and (2) an interlocutory summary judgment that did not dispose of attorneys’ fees or all parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders granting TCPA motions to dismiss	Fleming argued appeals of the orders granting TCPA dismissals were proper	Kirklin/Jackson argued no statute authorizes interlocutory appeal of an order granting a TCPA dismissal; only denials are appealable under §51.014(a)(12)	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of orders granting TCPA motions to dismiss and dismissed the TCPA appeals
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory summary judgment that reserves attorneys’ fees and does not dispose of all parties	Fleming sought review of the summary judgment	Kirklin argued the order was interlocutory because it did not resolve attorneys’ fees or all parties	Court held the summary-judgment order was interlocutory and not appealable because it did not finally dispose of all claims/parties

Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment rule and when an order is appealable)
Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (appellate jurisdiction normally limited to final judgments)
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (statutory authorization required for interlocutory appeals)
Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1998) (appellate jurisdiction exists only where statute explicitly provides)
McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001) (summary judgment that reserves attorneys’ fees is not final)
Direct Commercial Funding, Inc. v. Beacon Hill Estates, LLC, 407 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (discussion of TCPA timing and interlocutory appeal issues)
Edwards v. Kaye, 9 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (dicta and nonbinding statements explained)